Go to page

This is another example of what I mean by lenses. Through your lenses that's the case. But in actuality, you don't know that those things didn't happen. Also what psychics tune into are movements in energy/consciousness - which may or may not manifest physically in any particular reality.

Just on this point: there have been other "truthtellers" of CIA mind control (and sex slaves and pedophilia among the higher ups), so that it adds credibility to the larger story. Also, some of them haven't been "saved" by Mark Phillips, or been supportive of him.

To echo somewhat what Alex said in relation to the "satanic crimes", whatever specific details may be inaccurate in these accounts, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the bigger picture because we assume that "hypnosis may not be completely trustable".

EDIT: Other people who have talked about their mind control experiences include, among others: Brice Taylor, Candy Jones, Haley Meier, Kathleen Sullivan, Arizona Wilder, Cisco Wheeler, James Michael Casbolt, Duncan O'Finioan, Andy Pero, Michael Relfe, Barbara Hartwell. A lot of youtube videos online about/from these people. (This sometimes ties in with UFO/abduction material, as I mention in a later post.)

I only perused the video but it appears to me that when blinding the faciltitator ends the communication from the autistic child the it closes the case on FC. And what about your lenses? Do you think you don't have any?

I only perused the video but it appears to me that when blinding the faciltitator ends the communication from the autistic child the it closes the case on FC. And what about your lenses? Do you think you don't have any?

- Again your take on FC and "evidence" is very limited. Even if you were to be correct about the meaning of that particular instance, it doesn't mean that is the case in all FC.
- We all have lenses. It's part of being human. Some of us cultivate and use the ability to see that, identify them and even take them off now and then. Also, some lenses give a much wider focus than others.

This is another example of what I mean by lenses. Through your lenses that's the case. But in actuality, you don't know that those things didn't happen. Also what psychics tune into are movements in energy/consciousness - which may or may not manifest physically in any particular reality.

- Again your take on FC and "evidence" is very limited. Even if you were to be correct about the meaning of that particular instance, it doesn't mean that is the case in all FC.
- We all have lenses. It's part of being human. Some of us cultivate and use the ability to see that, identify them and even take them off now and then. Also, some lenses give a much wider focus than others.

Thing is, it depends on how you define "lenses". There may be germs of truth in all sorts of phenomena including UFOs/alien abductions. As often as not, a "lens" is a belief through which evidence is filtered, and (as you indicate) we all have beliefs like that. In fact, in the end, there's very little we can aver is knowledge rather than belief. There's also the fact that even where there may be some instances of a given phenomenon that are true, there may be other instances that aren't, and people with their own beliefs on all sides interpret them according to those beliefs. So impartial evaluation becomes very difficult; one may accept a subset of available evidence and reject the rest, or accept/reject all of it.

Even personal experience isn't definitive: If false memories can be implanted, and I believe they can (which is not to say they always are), then if I've had regression hypnosis, I can't be sure that my memories are true. In the case of FC, it's even more problematic because the autistics in question could only aver the truth through the use of FC, which is the very thing in question. The experiments where helpers were unable to facilitate correctly what autistics actually saw are extremely convincing. Does that mean that FC never works? I don't know, but personally, I lean towards the view that it's wishful thinking.

On top of all that, there are experiences that I think actually happen, but I may have strong doubts as to the way they are interpreted. In the abduction field, I lean most towards John Mack, and, I suppose, Carl Jung. Terence McKenna gave a glorious talk here:

I don't agree with everything he says: but I do agree with his way of talking about the UFO phenomenon, which I'd describe as involving a psychospiritual element. I'd also like to point you to what he says from 37:30 about the fact that we're all (somewhat inexpert) telepaths: it's simply sublime, because it points out, for me, the way that language is inadequate to convey experience from one mind to another, because we all consult different (as he puts it) "dictionaries"--I'd add idiosyncratic, as well as his cultural, ones. This is another way of speaking about "lenses".

ok... except that there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that law enforcement UNDER REPORTS "satanic crimes"... like all these kinds of things I'm not suggesting that you swallow it all, but sift through what's presented looking for the parts that can easily be substantiated and then ask what that suggests about the rest of the iceberg:

Ouchy... I'll have to play devil's advocate here.
The problem, I think, is that the rest of the iceberg is not for us to see because it is still under water. People like Dietrich or his more famous colleagues such as David Wilcock, Micheal Tsarion (which I like very much) or even David Icke, they want to make sense of it all. From hidden world war II agendas to CIA intrigues to aliens, parellel universes, Atlantis and Lemuria, secret Mars bases, dimensional portals, masonic rituals... they have an answer for everything

I have swallowed as much as I could of that kind of "connecting-the-dots" sort of conspiratorial/speculative literature and partially enjoyed it too. The only problem I have now is that I must keep my BS meter turned off to prevent it from blowing up

Also, I've seen too many people going bonkers after reading too much of that type of material. There's indeed some truth, but also some half truth and outirght fabrications... The reader is left on his own to understand which is which and he's now even warned about it.

ETA: Bottom line: I am not saying that there's no dark stuff out there, there is for sure. My personal journey to learning more about it via conspir-tainment literature hasn't been very fruitful, though.

Ouchy... I'll have to play devil's advocate here.
The problem, I think, is that the rest of the iceberg is not for us to see because it is still under water. People like Dietrich or his more famous colleagues such as David Wilcock, Micheal Tsarion (which I like very much) or even David Icke, they want to make sense of it all. From hidden world war II agendas to CIA intrigues to aliens, parellel universes, Atlantis and Lemuria, secret Mars bases, dimensional portals, masonic rituals... they have an answer for everything

I have swallowed as much as I could of that kind of "connecting-the-dots" sort of conspiratorial/speculative literature and partially enjoyed it too. The only problem I have now is that I must keep my BS meter turned off to prevent it from blowing up

Also, I've seen too many people going bonkers after reading too much of that type of material. There's indeed some truth, but also some half truth and outirght fabrications... The reader is left on his own to understand which is which and he's now even warned about it.

ETA: Bottom line: I am not saying that there's no dark stuff out there, there is for sure. My personal journey to learning more about it via conspir-tainment literature hasn't been very fruitful, though.

I get what you're saying and agree. It's almost like a test... yet another test along the path... can you walk thru all that darkness and not turn away from it, but not get sucked into it either.

But I do think we have to come back to it from time to time for a couple of reasons:
1. it gets at the "how can this be" question. how can there be all this evidence (NDE, OBE, PSI, UFO, etc.) and no acceptance?
2. it's a counterweight to the "dawning of a new age", paradigm shift stuff. What is this crazy, mixed-up, dark, sometime light existence is exactly how things are supposed to be without need for a new age?

Thing is, it depends on how you define "lenses". There may be germs of truth in all sorts of phenomena including UFOs/alien abductions. As often as not, a "lens" is a belief through which evidence is filtered, and (as you indicate) we all have beliefs like that. In fact, in the end, there's very little we can aver is knowledge rather than belief. [/media]
.

There's some overlap between our perspectives. Lenses - as I define them - are amalgams of beliefs and what one believes. I do however see personal experience as definitive - though not absolute. Since the physical is an expression of consciousness, an accepted implanted memory in itself generates an experience as valid as any other. If the persona, the non-physical self chooses not to have that implanted memory it won't take. One could go further and say that everything is an implanted memory.

I get what you're saying and agree. It's almost like a test... yet another test along the path... can you walk thru all that darkness and not turn away from it, but not get sucked into it either.

But I do think we have to come back to it from time to time for a couple of reasons:
1. it gets at the "how can this be" question. how can there be all this evidence (NDE, OBE, PSI, UFO, etc.) and no acceptance?
2. it's a counterweight to the "dawning of a new age", paradigm shift stuff. What is this crazy, mixed-up, dark, sometime light existence is exactly how things are supposed to be without need for a new age?

Everybody has their line in the sand. The very same NDE researchers who are totally accepting of the realness of blissful/positive NDE experiences have been known to refer to terrifying/negative NDEs as "hallucinations". For some reason, they just can't consider the dark side as part of the big picture.

I don't think people want to consider how "bad" experiences can open you up to Psi. Traditionally that was how it was done. It wasn't all meditation and 4-star vegan cuisine at some comfortable retreat in scenic California. It was going out in the wilderness by yourself, and facing challenges that were both physical and spiritual. Or it occurred on the battlefield as becoming "one" with your platoon gave you a better chance for survival.

There's some overlap between our perspectives. Lenses - as I define them - are amalgams of beliefs and what one believes. I do however see personal experience as definitive - though not absolute. Since the physical is an expression of consciousness, an accepted implanted memory in itself generates an experience as valid as any other. If the persona, the non-physical self chooses not to have that implanted memory it won't take. One could go further and say that everything is an implanted memory.

Well, yes, I suppose we can agree that our experiences are relatively definitive, in the sense that they act as what we regard as our most reliable guides to truth. But as a "radical sceptic" (as I've been dubbed on another thread, and I rather like the term), I'm constantly aware that I have little or no absolutely definitive experience in that same sense. Some people get this, and others don't. Some are able to act on their experiences without convincing themselves they have absolute knowledge, and others take their experiences as absolute pointers to truth. Some, the fundamentalists of this world, don't even require experience to convince them about what is true: belief is enough, however preposterous the proposition might be.

No one can deny that experience doesn't have a kind of validity, even if it's a false experience, like an implanted memory--even if it's, say, a schizophrenic hallucination. I'm not sure if what decides whether one regards whether an implanted memory will take is the "non-physical self". Depends to some extent what that means, I suppose. If one's talking about, say, the soul, that's one thing; and if one is talking about psychology, it's another.

See, I wonder if the soul is in total control: we are, after all, incarnated, and there is no doubt that physiological factors affecting the brain and thereby psychology do affect how we interpret the world in the incarnate state. Brain isn't mind, I believe, but if it's a filter, it does affect our perceptions and thereby our experiences and interpretations. And certainly, the strength of our beliefs can affect our choices whether to accept what others attempt to implant, whether through something as exotic as hypnotic regression, or through ordinary, everyday conversation.

I think few if any of us live in reality. Each of our perceived worlds is to a greater or lesser extent (as McKenna so eloquently expressed in the video), a construct. Some argue as if the construct is reality, perhaps especially if there are others who agree with them. But radical sceptics like me will always grant the relativity of their constructs in relation to absolute truth.

I think few if any of us live in reality. Each of our perceived worlds is to a greater or lesser extent (as McKenna so eloquently expressed in the video), a construct. Some argue as if the construct is reality, perhaps especially if there are others who agree with them. But radical sceptics like me will always grant the relativity of their constructs in relation to absolute truth.

Mostly yes. Where I see it differently is about the idea that there is some singular, absolute "real" physical reality. Yes - the construct is the reality. Or to put it more accurately - all physical realities are constructs and all constructs are realities.

- Your comment about fundamentalists shows the type of bias that leads to error. That the "fundamentalist" has different beliefs about what validates their reality doesn't mean your process is any less driven by beliefs.

- The comment "no one can deny" is another way of a person saying that your opinion is the correct one. It doesn't even need a denial, just another perspective.

- The term "non-physical self" doesn't apply to psychology which is a methodology based around the physical self.

Ninshub

But I do think we have to come back to it from time to time for a couple of reasons:
1. it gets at the "how can this be" question. how can there be all this evidence (NDE, OBE, PSI, UFO, etc.) and no acceptance?
2. it's a counterweight to the "dawning of a new age", paradigm shift stuff. What if this crazy, mixed-up, dark, sometime light existence is exactly how things are supposed to be without need for a new age?

Personally, I don't expect my learning process about extra-human spiritual reality to be enlightened by the nefarious activities of humans in this world. I am interested by some of that material though, to a degree, I've no illusions about the horrors of this world, and I've no immediate plans to go "bonkers" because of looking at that material.

But I definitely think Alex's first point is important, and part of the reason I see for bringing this stuff up here. To what extent are these worldly forces affecting the filtering of the evidence, the evidence itself as it's presented (UFOs and abductions, for example) and the acceptance of it?

EDIT: Re: UFOs/aliens. In the Cathy O'Brien video, at 1h10 she starts talking about her abusers/programmers trying to use an alien cover-up story. It's interesting to contemplate some of the Jacobs abductees narratives in the light of accounts like this.

Personally, I don't expect my learning process about extra-human spiritual reality to be enlightened by the nefarious activities of humans in this world. I am interested by some of that material though, to a degree, I've no illusions about the horrors of this world, and I've no immediate plans to go "bonkers" because of looking at that material.

Hehe, I am sure you won't This forum is a safe island, and I love it and I want it to stay as it is
If you have ever paid a visit or two to forums like ATS and the many other variants you sure know what I am talking about.

But I definitely think Alex's first point is important, and part of the reason I see for bringing this stuff up here. To what extent are these worldly forces affecting the filtering of the evidence, the evidence itself as it's presented (UFOs and abductions, for example) and the acceptance of it?

Good point. It's a pretty wide extent, imo. But I think I'd more interested in the reasons of the filtering more than the extent of it.
There is a good book by Jim Marrs called "Ruled by Secrecy" that does a fascinating and complex reconstruction of those many topics that Alex pointed to. There is also a certain amount of speculation, but Marrs is an investigative journalist and never looses the thread.

The thing is though that... if all of a sudden the stuff that Marrs talks about made it on mainstream media, the news etc... people would partly freak out, partly couldn't take it and partly run in the streets armed to the teeth and rioting against the power elites.

To a certain extent the "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses) are used as a paternalistic blue pill to avoid people getting in touch with stuff that would overwhelm them (be it "good" or "bad).

Sure, and that's the hard part. Not being sucked into it is kind of impossible. If you're not open enough to it you can't take it, if you open a tad too much it will suck you in, at least for a while. I was certainly sucked in when I started reading Ike & C. For starters its fascinating and secondly it is all very plausible. From the Gnostics to Theosophy to Castaneda to David Ike etc... the idea of dark forces inspiring and feeding off of human lower feelings is an intriguing concept and ties in with lots of other spiritual matters.

I somehow find it "strange" that we're talking about these things here... not because I have a problem with the subject, but I guess Skeptiko has been mostly concentrated on the bright side, NDEs, transformative spiritual experiences, connection with the afterlife. Interesting that we're now exploring the dark side, indeed there's a lot to learn from that too.

I guess Skeptiko has been mostly concentrated on the bright side, NDEs, transformative spiritual experiences, connection with the afterlife. Interesting that we're now exploring the dark side, indeed there's a lot to learn from that too.

How is the "dark side" any less a "connection with the afterlife" or spiritual? And if one talks about NDE,the concept of "hell" is not new. I'd say it's more often about the perspective of individual than a "side." Much in the same way that for one person being on the back of a motorcycle at 110 mph is thrilling, for another terrifying.

There is a good book by Jim Marrs called "Ruled by Secrecy" that does a fascinating and complex reconstruction of those many topics that Alex pointed to. There is also a certain amount of speculation, but Marrs is an investigative journalist and never looses the thread.

There's undoubtedly a lot of skulduggery and greed in the world. Is it because of demonic entities, or the human ego? If good stuff can be projected into the imaginal realm, maybe the bad stuff can, too. But the source, IMO, is the human psyche rather than angelic or demonic entities, even if some folk involved in nefarious activities could be devil-worshippers or members of secret societies with ill-intent.

How is the "dark side" any less a "connection with the afterlife" or spiritual? And if one talks about NDE,the concept of "hell" is not new. I'd say it's more often about the perspective of individual than a "side." Much in the same way that for one person being on the back of a motorcycle at 110 mph is thrilling, for another terrifying.

Sure, and that's the hard part. Not being sucked into it is kind of impossible. If you're not open enough to it you can't take it, if you open a tad too much it will suck you in, at least for a while. I was certainly sucked in when I started reading Ike & C. For starters its fascinating and secondly it is all very plausible. From the Gnostics to Theosophy to Castaneda to David Ike etc... the idea of dark forces inspiring and feeding off of human lower feelings is an intriguing concept and ties in with lots of other spiritual matters.

I somehow find it "strange" that we're talking about these things here... not because I have a problem with the subject, but I guess Skeptiko has been mostly concentrated on the bright side, NDEs, transformative spiritual experiences, connection with the afterlife. Interesting that we're now exploring the dark side, indeed there's a lot to learn from that too.

Wait a minute My conclusion is that there isn't all that much to learn from the dark side. It's like Skepticism, designed to look deep and complex, but really shallow and uninteresting. It's there, sure... but we need only "look up".

take on step toward god/white-light-thingie and he/she/it will take 10 toward you.